The "horrors" of Socialism Explained

Socialism is a "cancer"....it takes root and can never be satisfied until the host dies. Then is moves on to others,

 

Can it? How does pure capitalism stop some people from using coercion to give themselves an unfair advantage?

 

Sounds like you embrace the inequality of opportunity based around class. Very elitist friendly!

 

Sounds like you beat the drum of "class warfare" and "identity politics". It's the only game the Marxists know how to play.

 

Mere reference to reality. Inequality reflecting intergenerational wealth is a classic component of maintaining an elite. I'm a mere self made man mind you...

 

Apparently you don't support and maintain a family. My right to own and maintain property is not limited to my providing for future generations. Perhaps your focus on the collective precedes that of family. That is typical of Marxist ideology. As I said, class warfare is your game. Family is the bedrock of society and perhaps that is why the left holds it in low esteem. When I pass, the wealth I have accumulated goes to family, though I know you want it to go to "GOVERNMENT".

 

Though it is true men benefit from social interaction, socializing and socialism are two different concepts—one rests on good will and handshakes; the other on fear and bullets to the head.

 

It's not done to 'serve', it's done to secure better conditions than can be secured alone ... and to secure community. SOME people don't have access to property or community, and this is a way for them to have those things. In that sense it is actually selfish and liberating, since such people now have access to something previously not available.

 

The curiosity is that a family is a collective.

 

You're saying naff all here. You simply support a class system and, when informed of that reality, you cry Marxist. You do realise that social mobility analysis is just empirical analysis don't you? Its not actually based on any specific political economy school of thought.

 

Well if you're talking about voluntary exchanges between fellow social members for goods, services, and ideas, then call it by its real name, capitalism, and stop trying to whitewash the cruelty, barbarity, and insanity of socialism.

I don't exist to serve--I exist to live.

My life is mine to live, not my neighbors to rob, not society's to control, not the state's to abuse, and not God's to command. Mine. Is there anyone left in the world who understands that word, mine? Not yours, mine? As in "Keep your hands off of my stack, Jack".

 

I'm not discussing politics, I'm discussing economic models. In this case, the voluntary collective. A group which agrees to share labor and resources, gaining (from strength of number) that which they could not achieve alone.

 

Well, until there is a separation between state and economics, it will always be political.

The Anti-conceptual mentality:

"This type of mentality] has learned to speak, but has never grasped the process of conceptualization. Concepts, to him, are merely some sort of code signals employed by other people for some inexplicable reason, signals that have no relation to reality or to himself. He treats concepts as if they were percepts, and their meaning changes with any change of circumstances. Whatever he learns or happens to retain is treated, in his mind, as if it had always been there, as if it were an item of direct awareness, with no memory of how he acquired it—as a random store of unprocessed material that comes and goes at the mercy of chance . . . He does not seek knowledge—he “exposes himself” to “experience,” hoping, in effect, that it will push something into his mind; if nothing happens, he feels with self-righteous rancor that there is nothing he can do about it. Mental action, i.e., mental effort—any sort of processing, identifying, organizing, integrating, critical evaluation or control of his mental content—is an alien realm."--Ayn Rand http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/anti-conceptual_mentality.html
.
And that is what you're doing by treating voluntary exchange and the free trade of goods and services between a society's members as true socialism, devoid of any political association.

Socialism is a political concept. Its basic premise is: your life is ours, shut the fk up and obey--for the good of all, of course. Its history is one of oceans of blood, decades of horror, an infinity of screams, and an eternity of mass slaughter. Sugar-coating it by pretending true socialism is capitalism, doesn't make it so. A "tyranny" is a "tyranny" is a 'tyranny", no matter what you decide to call it.

 

Socialism is no more a 'political' concept, than it is a religious concept. Or a family concept. Or a farming concept. Since all of these groups employ Socialism. We are discussing Socialism, are we not? We're not discussing politics.

 

Hmm. Something must have got lost in translation. We are talking about the horrors of Socialism, not the daily interaction of humans in a free society; which, again, would be capitalism, individualism, freedom, you know, the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

 

Yes, the fake Socialist does just that. The actual Socialist, meanwhile, works for his lunch.

 

l

Ah, the lies we tell ourselves to get our hands on another's wealth.
Happily, after Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged, the socialists' con-game is over. Thank goodness.

But hell, if you want to live like bees and ants, go for it, get your jollies on, but leave me out of it.​

 

That's a pretty general question. Can you provide some sort of scenario as an example of someone using coercions to give himself an unfair advantage?

 

@Starjet , I think @crank is talking about such things as Kibbutzim. Perfectly acceptable voluntary agreements.

 

The Socialist only has access to the self-sufficiency (very little to nil surplus) produced by the work of his/her own hands.

 

Good example. And yes.

 

Family is "blood"....I'd never call it a collective. Family is much more descriptive.

Them's some pretty big words you use! There will always be class systems. We were not all made to wear Mao suits. I endorse your right to if you so wish.

 

Not always blood. But that's entirely beside the point. A group of people who agree to share costs/income/work is a collective. That it happens most frequently in families doesn't change that. The family practices socialism because they're more powerful together than apart. Same reason all Socialists do what they do.

 

Same number as it takes to "cover and hush up" (to use your terminology) the atrocities perpetrated in the name of Christianism, Conservativism, Democracy, Capitalism,... and every single idea that the human mind has ever conceived in history.

But... forget it. I already wasted too much time with you. You are obviously not material for a serious debate. Read a few books. Finish your studies. Learn. Maybe in a few years.... For now we are in agreement that, as far as serious debates, you are not one to be taken seriously...

 

Atrocities perpetrated in the name of capitalism? Example?